The problem is this year’s forecast revenue was in part derived from the suggested late receipt of last year’s revenue-read RNS warning in March 2023.That being the case, and we now have a farcical year end extension for 2024, what’s the point of having a year end or forecast at all?
As for cash, my pet subject, I did point out many times the company was under capitalised and the balance sheet was a mess.The company addressed this by having another two raises but as DJ pointed out a few days ago, the monthly cash burn is quite high.
This company spends its life on the cusp-it really needs to be owned by a big parent with deep pockets, depth in management, and free of plc reporting |
So the revenue gets pushed into next year's accounts. What's the problem with that? This year's figures show a deficit, and next year's show a boost. I don't think any company negotiating deals has much control over their timing. Cash won't be any more of an issue if the deal is signed today or in three months, unless of course the company will run out of money in the meantime. Are they?
If the situation is that dire then surely the other party will use it to their advantage and stall for as long as possible. |
Well it looks like the 31/3 numbers are missed-so it then falls to the new year end of 30/6.If they miss then, then a sink hole without so serious grown up explaining and cash will again come to the fore
Did IC say anything about the change in year end? |
I'm less than 5% as knowledgeable as regular posters here, so could someone explain what the big deal is if the signing of contracts gets pushed into the next fiscal year? |
Sadly this company’s future has revolved around FOMO for too long-ST is virtually untouchable because of it though it’s clear the routes to raising yet more cash are closing.
There is practically no institutional money in here-probably a good thing when heavily dependant on FOMO |
Yump, your thoughts are the same as mine. I think many of us are still invested for fear of missing out(FOMO). In my portfolio I have 10-12 companies I am invested in with SRT comprising around 40% of the total. I may be guilty of looking through rose tinted spectacles and know that many would say it is unwise to have a high proportion invested in a single company. On the other hand, if you have thoroughly done your research and visited AGM's regularly etc and understand the business, then big, bold bets can be made. |
I’ve been invested for years and years and see no reason to moan, as it was my decision to invest and to stay invested, despite the delays. Perhaps that has been a stupid idea. I also thought it might well have been a stupid idea to buy bitcoin when everyone thought it had crashed and burned after 2021. It all depends what you think the opportunity really is. |
I am invested and am entitled to complain about the complete failure over and over to deliver. |
My undersatnding is the STR system would enable a country to better use its limited resourses.
In other words faced with a vast sea and many boats out there around your coast, how does one narrow down the task?
Perhaps concentrate on those that appear on a coast guards radar that dont have responders. And other such methods.
Take on the Chinese navy? Ofcourse you can't. But you can cut the nets of those shipping boats fishing illegally in your waters. If their navy is there you simply move on to the next one. Even the Chinese navy dont have enough boats to protect every fishing vessel they have. The lost net / gear will be the boats loss, not state China.
IMHO |
I’m not saying that-my concern is why buy a system if you are only going to pay lip service to actual enforcement?Thats not SRTs fault-it’s the operator’s issue.Without enforcement, you are left with name calling.
We have some form here with Mexico and the deployment of the thousands of beacons sold a few years ago-I think funded by the US but correct me if I’m wrong.Does anyone believe they have all been stuck on boats and actively used because I don’t. |
 I don't think this argument about SRT not providing enforcement assets holds any water. These Coast Guards do have floating and aerial assets and are perfectly capable of ordering them to investigate an issue. They certainly don't have as many as they want and are constrained mainly by lack of finance. That constraint is partly overcome by bilateral assistance tied to buying the assets from one of thgeir companies. Accordingly they end up with kit from all over, Japan, Spain, France to name a few. So there is no one stop shop.
A further point is that SRT is successfully competing against the likes of Airbus which is an integrated defence company. Their customers do not want to buy from them either because SRT's kit does or SRT have persuaded them that does what they want.
Lastly, in the Philippines where they have their fishing system, the problem is not lack of enforcement. They know perfectly well who is fishing illegally - the 2,500 vessels that refuse to install transponders becasue they fish in the municipal waters reserved for smaller fishermen. BAE could do sod all about that. It is up to Marcos to stop dithering as he is reportedly apt to do.
Sure SRT does not have the clout of BAE or Airbus and they are pretty inexperienced with export finance and the like. |
Thank you Dave, DJtrading. |
I said a number of years ago that the problem with SRT wasnt the detection or monitoring systems, but that it couldn't provide any enforcement kit. As a country, it is all well and good knowing that illegal fishing etc is going on, but if the country can't do anything about it, is it worthwhile knowing ? Maybe better to just ignore ( and save money as well).If the USA is going to pay to help provide enforcement , then, as a country, I would probably lean towards buying the monitoring kit from the USA, and from a company that could also provide integrated enforcement equipment. Depending on what is going on, security clearance may also be required. I am sure SRT have a measure of clearance but a big defense manufacturer will have higher clearance and better integration - and a stronger balance sheet !Ocean infinity is a good start, but getting someone like BAe - if a UK owner is preferred - as a large shareholder would work wonders. No UK EF required ! No multi year delays in the ME (doors always open for BAe). And it is also one of the largest defence contractors in the USA with top level clearance. |
What a waste of time for some folks, posting on a company they think is rubbish and aren’t invested in. Great detail in some cases as well.
Glad I’m not that sad or with nothing constructive to do.
Where’s the list of their great and insightful investments ?
As if. |
The relevance of tension between China and the Philippines is post 14119 by Lav which identifies $24 billion of spend.The US is providing men and kit (ie enforcement)but they need to be able to see what is going on. |
It reads like Rudyard Kipling’s IF!
CM-you are becoming rather tiresome with your regular ramps about China-the problem with any system which is designed to inform and provide data is enforcement-look no further than the Channel |
South China Sea: China blasts Philippines for ignoring Beijing as tensions rise
Story by Georgina Cutler • 11h • 2 min read
China has taken aim at the Philippines for "ignoring" proposals to "manage" their dispute in the South China Sea.
The deal was "met with inaction by the Marcos administration", according to a senior Chinese official.
However, president Ferdinand Marcos Jr claimed they did not reject the deal but stood on a "questionable" premise.
Maritime confrontations between Manila and Beijing have become a regular feature in the South China Sea, as both countries assert their territorial claims in the highly strategic waters. |
What a terrible company to invest in. Jam tomorrow and then when there is a hint of success further delays occur. By the time they start generating some decent turnover other technologies will probably supercede their own tech. |
Performance bonds are standard and I would expect most contracts to stipulate one. In fact, all potential bidders for the BFAR tender had to have a bond accompanying their bid in order to even be considered.
I doubt that interest rate volatility has anything to do with the delay. It is much more likely to have to do with enhanced srutiny of a small company winning a large bid with an agency with a known corruption history in a country with the same issues. OTOH they would not be getting all the equipment ready and supplier loans for some of the same if they were not extremely confident about commencement shortly. Ocean Infinity would have had a good look as well. |
Yumyum - correct re UKEF imo
They have been negotiating the terms for 10 months now - below from the RNS 18th May 2023
"The signing of the contract (which is in relation to the letter of intent that the Company announced on 23 March 2023) was triggered by the completion of a government-to-government project finance MoU agreement, which paves the way for the completion of the project-specific inter-government UKEF supported loan agreement for this contract, which the customer's government is using to finance the project."
The Civil Servants on both sides negotiating the terms will have very strict boundaries and little room to manoeuvre on headline numbers such as interest rates, indexation, term and remedies etc. In addition, worldwide interest rates and exchange rates have been very volatile which will have moved the goal posts for both sides over the past year.
Whilst Simon went to great lengths in his recent email (see 13960) to explain that the chances of a UKEF deal not being concluded were "extremely slim" why did he feel the need to devote a whole paragraph to the impact of such an event? if as he concluded it was "very unlikely"
My view is that they won't reach an agreement and the contract will be postponed for ?years
And what is happening with Saudi? This 2 year project was supposed to have been completed by now see RNS Jan 2022. Of course they only signed a contract for the first phase and I commented about the apparent lack of trust by the customer requiring a performance bond and inspecting hardware in detail before despatch from the UK. I suspect (CM5s favourite word!) that the cost of in country civils etc. in the Middle East will be very high and despite what some here think the Contractor will want to see cash payment a lot faster than SRT received their cash for Stage 1, either as work progresses or on completion which will probably require SRT to raise further cash this year. Bond holders might also be less willing to roll debt (with nearly £8m due in the next 12 months!) if they can't see SRT receiving significant project cash this year and next.
I hope I'm wrong about this.
All imo dyor etc.
DJT |
There are clearly problems with UKEF-Santander-Indo payment terms. NOT just crossing i and t that our in charge CEO says. What are they ? It has been a very long problem. How major is it? Bear in mind that the contract is pretty simple. |
Ah that pesky year end Lav
If they miss the new year end, they will be knocking on the door for more cash from shareholders |
No we don't unfortunately. Although they may be well connected, that doesn't seem to speed up the sales/contracting process.
For Indonesia once the UKEF insuranace is out of the way, the broker says 'the time to revenue recognition is expected to be short (ie not several weeks)' so call it two weeks after delivery. It is Santander that pays once the invoice is approved. So considering that, I reckon that they are being very prudent in the forecast for the position at the new year-end. All £55 million of the recognised revenue is assumed still to be receivable. I would think that they would get a fair chunk converted to cash by then. |
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
Hot Features
Premium
